Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 May 13



Australian association football captain navboxes

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC) Per past consensus (here, here, here, and here), templates for club captains are overkill, are not a useful guide to navigation, and are WP:FANCRUFT as being team captain is not significant enough. S.A. Julio (talk) 21:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Adelaide United FC captains
 * Brisbane Roar FC captains
 * Central Coast Mariners FC captains
 * Melbourne City FC captains
 * Melbourne Victory FC captains
 * Newcastle Jets FC captains
 * Perth Glory FC captains
 * Sydney FC captains
 * Wellington Phoenix FC captains
 * Western Sydney Wanderers FC captains
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. S.A. Julio (talk) 21:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Being a captain is significant and notable, as they are the leaders of the clubs. As we can see we have templates for cricket captains (have a look at the bottom of all the pages listed in Template:National cricket captains, including Test, ODI, and T20I) as well as pages for lists of captains of national soccer teams and clubs (such as England and Cardiff City). These aid navigation if one is interested in the captains of a club and also is a highlight of the player's career. --SuperJew (talk) 12:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: Bringing to attention of WP:AFIA. --SuperJew (talk) 12:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per previous discussions – not necessary, nor particularly useful IMO. Number   5  7  13:01, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * delete, fancruft. Frietjes (talk) 19:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Unnecessary. Umarghdunno (talk) 08:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete all - per prior consensus. GiantSnowman 15:08, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete all - being captain of a football club is not significant or notable in the vast majority of cases (a cricket captain has very different responsibilities, and that is not a valid comparison). I have several books on the history of my club and not one feels the need to list who the captains were or even mention the fact in the pen pictures of players who I know for a fact were captain.  The Cardiff article should probably be deleted, as similar articles have  been in the past -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment There seems to be some interest and notability to it. Such as this EPL captain-by-captain analysis. In general I also know from Australian media that 95% of the time a captain is named in an article he is referred to as captain (for example Adelaide's captain Isias, City's captain Jakobsen, and Jets captain Boogaard) and they get more of a place, such as being present at season launch and appearing before the press with the coach. --SuperJew (talk) 13:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Module:Echo

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC) 3 functions: Also unused. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 17:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Echo
 * 1)   is redundant to Module:String
 * 2)   is redundant to Template:1x
 * 3)   is redundant to Template:Citation
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Reading Rockets current roster

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC) Unnecessary navigation, only two active links Aloneinthewild (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Reading Rockets current roster
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Module:Citation

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Blank. Consensus for blanking. What precisely do with it afterwards, there are quite a few ideas, which can be done through regular editing (noting though that a soft redirect in a module is not possible) (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC) Unused lua reimplementation of a bunch of templates that can be implemented easily in Wikitext (Note: Not to be confused with the very-heavily-used Module:Citation/CS1) &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 16:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Citation
 * comment – Module:Citation is moribund and I have long thought that it should be blanked rather than deleted because it is the root page of Module:Citation/CS1 and 40 other pages. Perhaps instead of blanking, the contents should be replaced with an error message return in case it ever is invoked. —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If invoked in place of Module:Citation/CS1, an error is already displayed with Module:Citation, as "Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'Module:mw' not found". -Wikid77 (talk) 14:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The lua error is thrown because Module:Mw, d by Module:Wikitext, was deleted 6 May 2018 as the result of this TfD.  Module:Wikitext should probably be a candidate for its own TfD.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:00, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Blank and possibly turn into an index of submodules. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:13, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Blank this page, and maybe turn it into a soft redirect to Citation/CS1. That may be a bad idea for reasons I am not thinking of, in which case I would support blanking with some sort of comment or module documentation explaining why the page has been blanked. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think any benefit comes from redirects to Module:Citation/CS1. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep and comment as historical. Over the past 6 years, there has been little danger of accidental usage, because it now displays an error for Module:mw not found. Instead, Module:Citation should be updated with Lua comments that is being kept for historical reasons as the genesis of Citation/CS1, and root of the subpages Module:Citation/*. Blanking the page would just hide the comments that, because of conflicting cite styles, the wp:CS1 cites were later implemented by the separate Module:Citation/CS1 to reduce confusion of the conflicting cite parameters. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Meh. Leaving non-operating code visible because it may (or may not) have historical significance is not a good idea.  This is why I suggested replacing the content with a meaningful error message. By doing that, editors who encounter the error message don't chase down the rabbit hole looking for modules that don't exist ...; so other editors don't make occasional tweaks to code that isn't used on the assumption that it is used; so vandals don't vandalize; see the module's history for examples so some of these things occurring since active development stopped in 2013.  Replacing the content with an appropriate error message doesn't make the module history go away so it remains available to anyone who is interested.  Perhaps this is a suitable return:
 * This module retained for historical and structural reasons; consider using Module:Citation/CS1.
 * Of course, more detail can and probably should be provided in the module's doc page.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:00, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Module:Table

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Merge. (non-admin closure) ~ Winged Blades Godric  13:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC) Propose merging Module:Table with Module:TableTools.
 * Table
 * TableTools

Duplicate Lua metamodules. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 15:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As the creator of the current version of the module, I am in favor. I created Module:Table simply because I don't have the template editor privileges required to edit Module:TableTools. — Eru·tuon 20:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge One table metamodule is enough. Usually the way of dealing with the protection issue is by using edit requests or template editor rights (or maybe RFA?). By the way, there is already a deep copy function in Scribunto (mw.clone), so Module:Table's deepCopy function can be turned into a wrapper for that. As for what to merge where, I like the name Module:Table better, so I suggest merging Module:TableTools to Module:Table, with a "Lua redirect" (change the contents of Module:TableTools to be ). — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 12:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Eh, I like TableTools; Table does not instantly give what it is about while TableTools does and is clear what its function is. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge per above; TableTools seems a better target also as the established module. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:International news channels

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Of an ambit, too-broad, to be practically useful.A more-refined template may be created de-novo. (non-admin closure) ~ Winged Blades Godric  13:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC) The title is confusing. Either we should change the name to "Channels with international availability" which in my opinion will be original research or just delete it. Put it in simple words it isn't navigable. Störm  (talk)  16:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Per request on my talk page
 * International news channels

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 23:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep The title of the template is a concise description of the content. The suggested alternative "Channels with international availability" also has the words "Channels" and "international", but the word "availability" is vague and meaningless.  The template is supposed to be restricted to "news" channels, not channels with "availability".  That term would include any type of broadcast, not simply "news". The claim that the template is "original research" seems meaningless since this isn't an article.  The claim that the template "isn't navigable" is not self-evident to me. Mitchumch (talk) 01:31, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not the purpose of WP:NAVBOX to tell which channel is available internationally. It is the worst use of template. Störm   (talk)  05:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NAVBOX, "A navigation template is a template that links between multiple articles belonging to the same topic." That "same topic" happens to be International news channels.  It would be no different than Template:Radio in New York City or Template:Television in Brazil. Mitchumch (talk) 06:48, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep, with clearer name - The template should certainly be kept, but I agree the name causes confusion. Is the template for 'news channels available globally' (eg. CNN, BBC World) or 'news channels which exist around the globe' (eg. Sky News Australia, Sky News Arabia, CNN Chile). Given the content, I'm assuming its the latter, in which case renaming the templates something like "News channels" or "24 hour news channels" -- Whats new?(talk) 07:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The template title is drawn from the article International news channels. (That article and List of news television channels may need to be WP:Merged).  That point put aside, I believe the distinction you are attempting to make is between international news channels and international news broadcasters. (See List of international broadcasters).  An international news channel is dedicated to reporting international events to a local audience.  An international news broadcaster is dedicated to reporting international events to a global audience.  I believe the template lists both channels and broadcasters, if I'm not mistaken.  Perhaps a clearer name for the template title would be "International news channels and broadcasters". Please correct me if I misunderstood you.  Mitchumch (talk) 08:27, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * delete, too large to be useful as a navbox. better to use categories and list articles for navigation. Frietjes (talk) 14:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not a useful tool for navigation.  -- wooden  superman  14:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per WS and Frietjes. --Izno (talk) 12:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, with a major rewrite. The box has no use as it is now. There are plenty of news channels in the box whose only claim for being "international" is that the livestream on the website can be viewed everywhere. Like there is ČT24 (the first and only 24-hour news channel in Czech language), or Puthiya Thalaimurai TV, a Tamil language news channel. This means that the purpose of the infobox would be that it lists, as Mitchumch puts it,  international news broadcasters, dedicated to reporting international events to a global audience. In that way, the box could be of ore use than it is now. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete the major rewrite is basically to make it a template it isn't, appears currently to be channels that report international news to local audiences, 90% of the navbox looks like it would be removed so more helpful to create a new navbox. Far too large and ill-defined to be useful. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Fictional health navbox

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC) No main article. Medical fiction, listed as the main article of the linked Category:Medicine and health in fiction, does not quite fit the character lists (and particularly the article Nurse stereotypes). – Laundry Pizza 03  ( d c&#x0304; ) 20:04, 3 May 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Fictional health navbox

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 00:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).